Making
America Decline with Old Style Globalism
For
Americans, globalism is primarily of benefit to the most rich
citizens. Globalism directed for the benefit of the most rich
Americans appears to exploit the long-term relative economic position
of the United States in the world. The rich get richer while the vast
majority of Americans don't (relative to other nations of the world).
The rise of American feminism coincides with the economic decline of
the United States as it compares with other nations -especially those
of Eurasia).. It is an unnecessary coincidence yet cannot be easily
corrected within the contemporary subversive-activist mileau.
Many
Americans continue to view the economy as if it still had the
world-leading output health it had during the Eisenhower
administration when it accounted for 40% of the planet's economic
output. Asia had yet to come on line while Europe was yet rebuilding
from war. After 1960 the United States began a gradual downhill slope
with wages for male workers stagnating after 1974. Modern feminism
was just getting its second wind then and sought greater empowerment
and prosperity. It had no concern about the comparative decline of
the U.S.A. near-term or over the long haul. Feminists coupled with
minority populations of the United States in affirmative action
for-themselves while the ship was taking on water. They rose with and
developed an anti-white male, anti-American world view. The
domestically resistive power sought wealth and felt natural
alliances with global populations of peer race and feminist
movements.
Today
the United States has about 4% of world population and about 20% of
the economic output and perhaps somewhat more income. National income
differs from gross domestic product in that foreign outflows are
subtracted to reflect a more accurate picture of the annual income of
a nation. As a percent of the world income the share of the united
States continues to decline. The conditions that brought it to be a
world leader changed.
Europe's
peak percent of global production and wealth, according to one
well-known economist and author, was in 1913. The United States did
have natural resource advantages of course and a lead from its
heritage of brilliant Euro-American inventors in technology and a
unified central government yet the great world wars and the vast
disruption to most of the industrial production of the rest off the
world undoubtedly conferred a temporary advantage to the production
and trading position of the United States that reached its peak in
the 1950s. At the present rate of decline the portion of global
income of the U.S.A. in 2050 may be about 4%. Yet the most rich may
take 90% of that even so.
The
United States could perhaps act politically to make America great
again, yet that would be quite challenging. Presentably feminists and
certain minorities are wroth with the election of Donald Trump to the
Presidency instead of Hillary Clinton. Homosexuals were too happy
with the Clinton-Obama approach to homosexual issues. Homosexuals in
the Democrat, decadent, queer, new world order would be assured
companionable health love-robots with penis' extensible from an inch
to 3 feet in measure for their sucking pleasure. Opioid and queer
machines would for democrat mules probably be regarded as mating
America great again. The Democratic party mule is seeking ways to
re-empower themselves and impeach through any means possible the
Trump administration.
One
device the Democrats have for attacking the Trump administration is
through foreign policy. They have made it virtually a crime for
association with Russia. Yet Russia is and was a key to making
America great again.
Russia
has vast lands and natural resources as well as bright, articulate
yet bold people. That is a strength as well as a vulnerability.
Russia in the post cold-war environment should be a natural ally of
the U.S.A. instead of the enemy it was treated as by the Clinton
administration that sought to redistribute the Ukraine and Crimea to
the west. Russia and the Ukraine have fewer than 200 million people
together and are regarded as easy pickings targets for global
expansionists, perhaps in error.
President
Barrack Obama said the 21st
is the Pacific century. He was looking at the great population and
economic potential of Asia. He grew up in Indonesia. Asia already has
more than 60% of the global population and 40% of planetary output. A
trend toward development and demographic inertia in economics coupled
with equalization of planetary income distribution obviously would
bring Asia to be the world economic leader. Versus the billions of
Asians with new economic and military power Russia and its smaller
population might experience vulnerabilities and political shocks the
next century while the United States with just 4% of the planet's
population and increasing public debt would be unable to afford a
dominant military structure. It would diminish in global political
significance to be comparable to France. Asian immigration and
economic power would naturally expand into domination of the markets
and political control of the United States as the United States for a
few decades was an 800 pound gorilla in certain Latin American
economies.
American
women are about 1.5% of the planet's population, with American blacks
comprising a slightly smaller percent. As they exploit foreign
alliances to advance their own national standing vs white men the
advantages will be temporary. Eventually the U.S. position would tend
to merge toward and be equilibrated with global standards and agenda
set abroad in politically bad cultural power centers.
Of
course some Americans wonder if it isn't possible to de frappe the
Asian edge. After all there isn't a Christian nation in Asia and it
has numerous atheists as well as Muslims. American women may one day
be required to wear hijab or to be atheists under Chinese cultural
values. As a nearly insignificant percentage of the world population
Americans generally will have little say in defining their own
cultural and economic position in perhaps, half a century.
President
Trump has at least made a gesture toward resuming American greatness.
Like King Canute though he cannot roll back the tide of history. The
1950s are gone along with the American position in the globe. It is
not too late to lever the remaining advantages of the United States
into a better than global average position for the century ahead
however.
What
made America great was technological superiority and natural
resources given by God with intelligent leadership and a boundless
faith in manifest destiny (not the Monroe Doctrine). Americans
believed they were working the will of God in His plan for the
advance of mankind. He has the tools to accomplish progress. The
tools required for that task are more challenging to get today, and
are easily misapplied.
Technological
proliferation in the communication and information age is nearly
instantaneous. Perhaps the sole way to create a national advantage
through state-of -the-art technology is to join it to
state-of-the-art and inventive ecospheric conservation and
restoration leadership that benefits all mankind. It should make the
ships rise in all of the harbors of the world as well as the United
States. Most people didn't mind too much that Bill Gates or Stephen
Jobs got very rich since their products were good and improved the
quality of life of users.
In
an age where income inequality is increasing in the United States the
investment in Asia is great. In the United States tax cuts go to the
most rich and wages stagnate for the majority or little rise. Does
the value of the stock market rise because the corporations are
investing in China, or because all of the free money issued to the
big banks has nowhere else to go; loans that pay little interest
don’t profit banks so much as buying the market. Perhaps the market
rise is really market inflation limited to itself rather than
consumers.
Feminists
and blacks use a class-exclusive economic analysis based on sex and
race instead of individual economic wealth (or lack of it) as a
citizen. That divides. Neither does it regard the position of the
U.S.A. in the global economic historical tide and currents except
perhaps as they seek to reduce income inequality for race and gender.
In the process they conflate ideas of income inequality nationally
and internationally across race, gender and other lines with national
GDP comparisons. Methods to change national sex and race inequality
differ generally from those required to change international GDP
disequilibria.
Gross
GDP inequality may be theoretically changed in several ways. Plainly
though within a neo-democratic political environment the sole
pragmatic goal would be to find some sort of fair cohesion of income
with demographics where nations have a proportionate share of of
income globally in respect to population. Regardless of how one
reaches that status in the future, American become a very
insignificant global player with just 3 or 4% of the world income.
The
most rich Americans will not be of help ion changing that future.
People like Warren Buffet and Steve Jobs invested in China decades
ago. The most rich 1% of Americans will be global plutocrats and
remain rich even if the people of the United States sink to slightly
below average planetary incomes levels because of As 50 million
Americans today have less than a half of one percent of national
income, women will still strive to be the leaders in that social
structure and Sieg heil the 1% while descrying male advantage.
President
Trump expressed the right sentiment about making America great again
yet it nearly impossible to do so with the economic engines of the
past. In the future Americans may be blamed, rather unfairly, by
Asians, for creating global warming. Democrats have become accustomed
to regarding Russians as the new Jews for pogroms and blame in their
allegiance to globalism and Asia and hatred of U.S. nationalism. One
day Americans too may be dumped with Russians as blame-worthy peoples
(of Christian nations). Atheist American feminists in radio naturally
find resonance in the atheist Chinese communist party yet probably
regard its all-male Politburo as repressive and chauvinistic and at
any rating, worthy of long-range investment of political effort to
evolve.
If
President Trump could be a ecospheric technology leader as well as a
genius at getting a moon ecosphere started as a first step in
exoplanetary human habitat creation he might be able to create the
long-term better than average lifestyle position for ordinary
Americans. It is doubtful that he can morph that technocrat ensemble
realistically. Japan and Russia should be natural American allies in
the effort to make lava-tube Eco-habitats self-sustain on the moon
and mars. On Earth the U.S. should revolutionize new transport system
that do not require vast road building or atmospheric degradation.
Better economic models and quicker, less exclusive patent regulations
need be made into law. President Trump would have his hands full, and
cannot even get a new alternative energy network started in Puerto
Rico. Fundamentally, America is snoring through history with blind
faith in Asian wealth-management dreams.
